Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Satish Damodhar Kasar, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging an order dated 22 July 1994 passed by the Collector, Aurangabad. The order directed the petitioner to shift his country liquor shop from its existing location to another place, failing which the shop would be closed, purportedly under Section 142(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The petitioner contended that he held a valid licence for retail sale of country liquor and that the order was arbitrary and violated his rights. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and the Collector, argued that the order was passed in public interest and that the licence did not confer a fundamental right. The court, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sunil P. Deshmukh, heard the matter. The court observed that the licence for sale of country liquor is not a fundamental right and that the power under Section 142(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 is valid. The court noted that the order was passed in public interest and that the petitioner had not made out a case for interference under writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the order directing the petitioner to shift the shop or face closure.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Discretionary Remedy - The petitioner challenged an order under Section 142(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 directing him to shift his country liquor shop or face closure. The court held that the licence for sale of country liquor is not a fundamental right and the order was passed in public interest. The court declined to interfere in its writ jurisdiction. (Paras 1-3) B) Prohibition Law - Closure of Liquor Shop - Section 142(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 - Power to Shift or Close - The Collector passed an order under Section 142(1) directing the petitioner to shift his country liquor shop to another place, failing which the shop would be closed. The court upheld the order, noting that the power under Section 142(1) is valid and the petitioner's licence does not confer an absolute right to continue at the same location. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order directing the petitioner to shift his country liquor shop or face closure under Section 142(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 is valid and whether the petitioner's licence confers a fundamental right to continue the business at the same location.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The order dated 22.7.1994 directing the petitioner to shift his country liquor shop or face closure is upheld.
Law Points
- Licence for sale of country liquor is not a fundamental right
- Section 142(1) of Bombay Prohibition Act
- 1949 empowers shifting/closing of liquor shops in public interest
- Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India is discretionary
- No interference with order directing shifting of shop failing which closure.
